Appellate Court shall not disturb acquittal where prosecution fails to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2008

The prosecution's case was initiated by a complaint from Rajubhai Laxmanbhai Mene, father of the deceased Punamben. It was alleged that the respondents subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment, doubting her character and physically assaulting her, which led her to commit suicide by consuming poison on 22.09.2007

The respondents were charged under Sections 498A, 323, 306, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in passing the judgment and order of acquittal based on the evidence on record

2. Whether the trial Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution

3. Whether there is any manifest illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned judgment

The court applied Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal

Legally, it relied on the "double presumption" of innocence: first, the fundamental principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and second, that an acquittal reinforces this presumption

The court followed principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which establish that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable views are possible and the trial court’s view is not perverse

The High Court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses, including the father (PW-4) and brothers (PW-5, PW-6) of the deceased, failed to support the prosecution’s theory of cruelty or dowry demands

PW-4 admitted in cross-examination that he had not mentioned the alleged demand for Rs. 50,000 in the FIR and that the deceased had never complained of ill-treatment prior to the incident

Furthermore, it was admitted that the FIR was filed only after consultation with community leaders, and witness statements were recorded collectively after mutual consultation, undermining their reliability

The court noted that a prior Accidental Death (A.D.) inquiry found no incriminating evidence against the respondents

Consequently, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the bridge between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide.

The court answered the issues in the negative regarding perversity, finding that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was cogent and well-reasoned

The appeal by the State was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal was confirmed, and the bail bonds of the respondents were cancelled