Gujarat HC Upholds Acquittal Of 2 Brothers-In-Law In Woman’s Suicide Case, Finding No Specific Act Of Abetment

Ranjita, whose second marriage to accused No. 6 took place on 22 August 2004, allegedly faced harassment by her in-laws, including taunts that she had eloped and statements that her husband would marry another woman.

She was brought to her parental home on 6 November 2004 and did not return to the matrimonial home. After a meeting between the families on 9 January 2005, she died by suicide at her parental residence on 12 January 2005.

Her father’s complaint led to charges under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted all accused.

In the State’s appeal under Section 378 CrPC, the appeal had abated as to accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 following their deaths; accused Nos. 4 and 5 remained before the Court.

Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, requires proof that the accused abetted the suicide through instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid; a specific active role and evidence of direct or indirect incitement are necessary, and mere harassment, without a positive act proximate to the suicide, is insufficient (Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707).

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reassess the evidence, but should not interfere where the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible; an acquittal is not to be displaced merely because another view favouring conviction is possible (State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, (2023) 18 SCC 87).

The Court found no cogent evidence of a specific act by accused No. 4 or 5 amounting to instigation or intentional aid.

The allegations of general harassment were unsupported by independent evidence; the complainant’s family witnesses did not establish contemporaneous complaints, and the independent witness to the family meeting testified that no allegation of harassment or dowry demand was raised there.

The handwriting expert’s opinion that the note was written by Ranjita did not, by itself, prove abetment.

Given the absence of a live and proximate link between the surviving accused’s conduct and the suicide, and the reasonable view taken by the Trial Court, the Court found no basis to disturb the acquittal.

It dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the acquittal; the appeal had already abated as to accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. The bail bond was cancelled and the record and proceedings were ordered returned to the Trial Court.