Mere Harassment Without Positive Proximity to Suicide Does Not Constitute Abetment Under Section 306 IPC.

The State and the original complainant appealed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Court, Rajula, for an offense under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent harassed the deceased (Kavita, aged 16) by making phone calls, sending SMS, and demanding marriage.

It was alleged that on the evening of 27.08.2008, the respondent threatened the deceased, telling her to marry him or face consequences like her aunt.

The deceased committed suicide by hanging the next morning between 9:00 and 9:30 AM.

Procedurally, the trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of evidence and failure to prove the ingredients of abetment.

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in passing the judgment and order of acquittal based on the evidence led by the prosecution.

2. Whether there was any manifest illegality or perversity in the trial Court’s appreciation of evidence regarding the nexus between the alleged harassment and the suicide.

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

Velladurai v. State [(2022) 17 SCC 523], establishing that abetment requires an "active role" or "positive action" proximate to the time of occurrence, and mere harassment without such action is insufficient.

Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2010 SC 327] regarding the necessity of a proximate nexus.

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415] regarding the "double presumption of innocence" in appeals against acquittal.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a "proximate nexus" between the alleged threat and the suicide. Specifically, the threat allegedly occurred on the evening of 27.08.2008, after which the deceased slept peacefully with her family; the suicide occurred 15–16 hours later.

The Court noted material contradictions between PW-1 (mother) and PW-2 (uncle) regarding how the body was handled.

Crucially, the investigation was found deficient: the rope was not recovered or sent to the FSL, and a handwritten chit potentially pointing to another individual (Pranavbhai) was not analyzed by a handwriting expert.

Defense evidence (Exh. 114) suggested the respondent was at his workplace during the alleged incident.

Applying Velladurai, the Court reasoned that the acts alleged did not constitute the "active instigation" required under Section 107 IPC to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

The Court held that the trial court's view was reasonable and not perverse, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court reaffirmed that in the absence of evidence showing the accused played an active role in facilitating the suicide, the presumption of innocence reinforced by the trial court's acquittal must prevail.

The bail bond was cancelled.