Inconsistency between multiple dying declarations and lack of medical certification necessitates acquittal in abetment of suicide.

The deceased, Purnaben, committed suicide by self-immolation on June 14, 2011

The respondent (father-in-law), who sustained burn injuries while attempting to rescue her, was subsequently charged under Sections 498(A), 306, 509, and 506 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that after discovering the deceased had a mobile phone and an extramarital relationship with a neighbor named Ramesh, the respondent pressured her for illicit physical relations and harassed her

Initially, the deceased gave a medical history and a Dying Declaration (DD) to the Executive Magistrate stating she immolated herself out of fear because her relationship was discovered, explicitly exonerating the respondent

However, four hours later, after meeting relatives, she gave a second DD alleging harassment and demands for physical relations by the respondent

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on August 31, 2012

1. Whether the learned Trial Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

2. Whether the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, committed any error of law or fact

3. Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers from any illegality or perversity

The court applied Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC

It relied on the "Rule of First Opportunity" and principles for assessing multiple dying declarations established in Irfan alias Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The court further applied the standard of appellate review in acquittals as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" for an acquitted accused and the rule that if two reasonable views exist, the appellate court must not disturb the acquittal

The Court found the first DD and medical history highly reliable as they were recorded at the earliest opportunity (9:32 AM and 11:25 AM) and carried medical certification of the deceased's conscious state

In contrast, the second DD (3:25 PM) lacked medical endorsement and appeared to be a product of tutoring or afterthought following the arrival of parental relatives

The Court noted that the respondent’s own burn injuries sustained during the rescue attempt were consistent with the first version of events

There was no evidence of "instigation" or "wilful conduct" of such nature as to drive a woman to suicide under Section 306 or 498A

The prosecution failed to provide medical records from the referral hospital (Junagadh) or any independent corroboration of harassment

The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s acquittal was confirmed

The Court held that when a first DD is consistent and voluntary, and a second DD is recorded after the arrival of interested parties without medical certification, the latter cannot form the basis for conviction