Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecution Fails to Exhibit Suicide Note or Prove Positive Acts of Instigation.

The deceased, Gyanesh Vishwakarma, was found hanging in his house on December 17, 2015

The prosecution alleged that despite a prior settlement of matrimonial disputes, the respondents (Gyanesh's wife Sangeeta, her uncle, mother, and brother) subjected the deceased to persistent mental harassment and interference, leading him to commit suicide

A suicide note was seized during the investigation

The trial court, vide judgment dated September 22, 2017, acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC

The State appealed this acquittal, contending that the testimonies of family members (PW-1 to PW-4) sufficiently established abetment despite the suicide note not being exhibited during the trial

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC to sustain a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC

2. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the lack of evidence for instigation or incitement were perverse or legally implausible

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

It relied on S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, which held that abetment requires mens rea and a positive act intended to push the deceased into a position with no other option but suicide

The court further cited M. Mohan v. State and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra regarding the necessity of "close proximity" between the act and the suicide.

Additionally, it followed H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka regarding the limited scope of appellate interference in judgments of acquittal

The High Court observed that the prosecution’s primary witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) significantly exaggerated their testimonies, even alleging murder—a claim inconsistent with the prosecution's own case of suicide

Crucially, the prosecution failed to exhibit or prove the alleged suicide note, leading the court to draw an adverse inference

The court noted a lack of evidence regarding any specific quarrel or act of instigation immediately preceding the suicide

Furthermore, since a matrimonial compromise had recently been reached between the deceased and his wife, the court found no immediate motive for the respondents to instigate the suicide

Applying the standard of review for acquittals, the court found that the trial court's view was a legally plausible interpretation of the evidence

The High Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal, stating that the findings of acquittal were neither perverse nor faulty; the respondents' acquittal remains upheld