Mere matrimonial discord and common household disputes do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The deceased, Rajendra, married respondent Bharti in June 2018. The prosecution alleged that Bharti pressured the deceased to live separately from his disabled mother, leading to frequent disputes

On 03.02.2019, Bharti’s parents (respondents Rupkumar and Anita) allegedly argued with and physically assaulted Rajendra in public, telling him to "die" and "hang himself"

The following day, Rajendra’s body was found on a railway track

A charge sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide). The Trial Court acquitted the respondents on 25.11.2022, finding the prosecution failed to prove instigation

The State appealed this acquittal, seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(III) Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the alleged acts of the respondents, including verbal abuse and matrimonial discord, constitute "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal when the view taken by the trial court is a "plausible view"

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

Abetment requires mens rea and an active act intended to push the deceased into suicide (S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan).

Without a positive act to instigate, a conviction cannot be sustained (M. Mohan v. State).

An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is legally plausible, even if an alternative view exists (H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka).

The Court observed that the marriage was initially happy and no dowry was demanded. While the prosecution witnesses (relatives of the deceased) alleged a dispute on 03.02.2019, their testimonies contained material contradictions, omissions, and improvements.

Notably, no police complaint was filed regarding the alleged cruelty until 11 days after the death (15.02.2019), and initial police intake forms (Safina Form/Dehati Nalishi) contained no such allegations.

The Court noted that the respondent wife was two months pregnant at the time, indicating a degree of domestic harmony.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court reasoned that "ordinary matrimonial disagreements" or verbal outbursts like "go and die" during a heated argument do not amount to the deliberate mens rea required for "instigation" under Section 107 IPC.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the criminal appeal, affirming that the Trial Court's judgment was not perverse and represented a plausible view based on the evidence.