Conviction for abetment of suicide requires proof of positive, proximate instigation beyond mere matrimonial discord.

The deceased, Amit Singhal, married Respondent No. 2 (Jyoti Singhal) in November 2020.

This was the second marriage for the deceased and the third for the respondent.

The relationship was strained, and the respondent moved to her parental home in Odisha in July 2021.

On September 23, 2021, the deceased committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide.

A suicide note was recovered, and call detail records (CDR) indicated telephonic conversations between the couple prior to the incident.

The prosecution alleged that continuous telephonic quarrels and threats of false implication by the respondent drove the deceased to suicide.

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 306 of the IPC on July 23, 2024.

The appellant, the brother of the deceased, challenged the acquittal and moved an application under Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023, to produce additional evidence, including a prior police complaint and a settlement deed.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to produce additional documents at the appellate stage under Section 432 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the respondent’s conduct of telephonic quarrels and alleged threats constitutes "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal in the absence of perverse findings.

The court applied Section 306 of the IPC (Abetment of Suicide) and Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid.

Relying on Ramesh Kumar v. State of C.G., the court defined "instigation" as an act to goad, urge forward, or provoke, requiring reasonable certainty that the act would incite the consequence.

Under Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, the court noted that harassment alone, without a proximate positive act leading to suicide, is insufficient for conviction.

Regarding acquittal appeals, the court followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, holding that if two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court must not disturb the finding of acquittal.

Section 432 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 391 CrPC) regarding additional evidence was also considered.

The court first rejected the application for additional evidence, noting that the documents were available during the trial and the appellant could not be permitted to fill lacunae at the appellate stage.

On the merits, the court observed that the respondent had been living at her parental home for approximately two months prior to the suicide, breaking the requirement of a proximate act of instigation.

While the CDR confirmed telephonic conversations, the prosecution failed to provide the content of these calls to prove inciting behavior.

The court noted that matrimonial discord and "pity issues" do not inherently meet the high threshold of mens rea required for abetment.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the deceased was being treated for migraines, suggesting potential underlying distress unrelated to the respondent.

Applying the standard of review for acquittals, the court found that the Trial Court’s view was plausible and not perverse.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a positive act of instigation or intentional aid by the respondent as required under Section 107 of the IPC.

The application for additional evidence was rejected as it would prejudice the procedural framework and the rights of the accused.

The court concluded that the Trial Court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under the double presumption of innocence favoring the acquitted.