Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to prove proximate instigation or direct causal link for suicide.

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhuj, concerning offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Rekhaben, married the accused 14 years prior and was subjected to physical and mental torture over dowry demands and the accused's alleged extra-marital affair.

On 24/04/2007, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses, including the deceased's son (P.W. 9), who testified there was no harassment or fight between his parents.

Several family members of the deceased admitted they had never visited the matrimonial home in Mundra and had no personal knowledge of the alleged cruelty.

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC, specifically that the accused through his conduct or words instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide.

2. Whether there was a proximate and direct causal link between the alleged acts of the accused and the deceased’s decision to end her life.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal where the trial court's view is plausible and supported by evidence.

The court primarily applied Section 306 of the IPC regarding abetment of suicide and Section 107 of the IPC which defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding.

It relied on *Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka*, establishing that instigation requires "provoking" or "urging forward" an act with a reasonable certainty of the consequence.

The court cited *Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal* and *Rajesh v. State of Haryana*, affirming that mere harassment without a positive act proximate to the time of occurrence does not sustain a conviction under Section 306.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka* regarding the "double presumption of innocence" in acquittal appeals.

The court found that the prosecution failed to provide positive evidence of instigation or intentional aiding.

The testimony of the deceased's son (P.W. 9) directly contradicted the allegations of cruelty, stating there were no fights and the family was preparing for a trip.

The court noted that major prosecution witnesses (P.W. 7, 8, 10, 11, 15) lacked personal knowledge of the couple's life in Mundra.

Legally, the court reasoned that "instigation" requires an active suggestion or conduct of such intensity that it leaves the victim no other option.

Since there was no evidence of a "live and immediate nexus" between the accused's behavior and the suicide, the legal threshold for abetment was not met.

The court observed that the trial court's findings were not perverse and were based on a reasonable appreciation of the numerous contradictions and omissions in the prosecution's case.

The court affirmed that in an appeal against acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must not disturb the trial court's finding.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court was confirmed.