Contradictory dying declarations and absent corroboration warrant acquittal where cruelty and abetment remain unproved beyond reasonable doubt.

The deceased, Varshaben, married the respondent in an inter-caste civil marriage against her parents’ wishes.

The prosecution alleged that, during approximately six months of marriage, the respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, abused her, consumed liquor, and assaulted her, thereby driving her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze on 30 April 2010.

She died during treatment on 5 May 2010.

The respondent allegedly sustained burn injuries while attempting to rescue her and was admitted to the same hospital.

The deceased’s complaint led to registration of II-C.R. No. 76 of 2010 for offences under Sections 498A, 306, 506 and 504 of the IPC.

After investigation and committal, the respondent was tried in Sessions/Atrocity Case No. 126 of 2010 and acquitted by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, on 19 July 2012.

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

1. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent of offences under Sections 306, 498A, 506 and 504 of the IPC

2. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution

3. Whether the acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or manifest error warranting appellate interference

The Court considered Sections 306, 498A, 506 and 504 of the IPC, requiring proof of abetment of suicide, cruelty, criminal intimidation and intentional insult, respectively.

It applied the principle that the fact that a woman died within seven years of marriage does not, by itself, establish offences under Sections 306 or 498A; the prosecution must prove foundational facts through cogent and reliable evidence, as recognised in Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2025] 6 SCC 820, and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the accused carries a double presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible, in accordance with 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 High Court found that the prosecution evidence was materially inconsistent and insufficient to prove cruelty or abetment beyond reasonable doubt.

The Executive Magistrate’s dying declaration recorded that there had been no quarrel with the respondent, that there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide, and that the burns were accidental; this was treated as her first version.

The subsequent police-recorded version, which supported the prosecution case, materially contradicted the dying declaration, and doubts also arose concerning the documents at Exhibits 49 and 52, including the name appearing on Exhibit 49 and the absence of reliable handwriting or signature comparison.

The respondent’s serious burn injuries, his immediate act of taking the deceased to hospital, and his hospitalisation supported the possibility that he had attempted to rescue her.

The deceased’s parents had no regular knowledge of the couple’s life after the marriage and had first visited her only at the hospital, while the independent neighbour and landlady did not support the prosecution.

Applying the standard governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was reasonable and that there were no firm or compelling grounds to substitute it with a finding of guilt.

It held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent subjected the deceased to cruelty, abetted her suicide, or committed offences under Sections 498A, 306, 506 or 504 of the IPC.

The appeal against acquittal was dismissed, the trial court’s judgment dated 19 July 2012 was confirmed, the respondent’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.