Mere harassment or threats regarding money transactions do not constitute abetment to suicide without proof of instigation.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 28.03.2023 by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Mokam Singh, had advanced ₹20,000 to Respondent No. 1. When repayment was demanded, the respondents allegedly harassed and threatened to kill the deceased or falsely implicate him in a rape case.

On 07.08.2021, the deceased consumed poison and later succumbed during treatment on 09.08.2021.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of family members (PW-1 to PW-4) and a dying declaration (Ex.P/15).

1. Whether the alleged harassment and threats by the respondents constitute "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence warranting interference by the High Court.

The court applied Section 306 of the IPC regarding abetment of suicide and Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment as instigation, engaging in conspiracy, or intentional aid.

It relied on S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, establishing that abetment requires a "positive act" and clear mens rea to push the deceased into a position where suicide is the only option.

Principles from M. Mohan v. State regarding the necessity of a direct act of instigation.

H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, which dictates that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view".

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the proximate link between the respondents' actions and the suicide.

It noted material contradictions between the testimonies of the deceased’s mother (PW-3) and father (PW-4) regarding the timing of the alleged threats.

Crucially, the Court found a significant time gap between the threats and the suicide, and noted that the threats were often communicated to the mother rather than the deceased directly.

Applying the "instigation" standard, the Court held that relative to the dying declaration (Ex.P/15), mere allegations of harassment over money transactions do not satisfy the legal requirement of active incitement to commit suicide under Section 107 IPC.

The Court found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was a legally plausible view.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the criminal appeal, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Khandwa.