Mere presence at the crime scene does not establish abetment under Section 114 IPC.

On 29 May 2015, accused Sokat Shaikh and his wife, Rizwanaben, allegedly abused and confronted Shahebaz while he was travelling by motorcycle.

Following a dispute, Shahebaz and his family went to City “B” Division Police Station, Bharuch, to lodge a complaint.

Outside the police station, Sokat, Minhaz and Rizwanaben allegedly confronted the complainant party; Minhaz allegedly restrained the complainant, Sokat allegedly assaulted and stabbed him, and Rizwanaben was alleged to have instigated the assault.

An FIR was registered on 30 May 2015, followed by a chargesheet against Sokat and Minhaz and a supplementary chargesheet against Rizwanaben.

The Sessions Court convicted Sokat and Minhaz under Section 307 read with Section 114 of the IPC and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment with fine, but acquitted Rizwanaben for want of reliable evidence establishing her participation or abetment.

The State challenged her acquittal before the High Court under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in acquitting Rizwanaben of the offences under Sections 307, 324 and 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Whether the evidence established that Rizwanaben abetted or instigated the principal accused to commit the alleged assault, warranting interference with the acquittal.

Whether the Trial Court’s view was perverse or unreasonable so as to justify appellate interference in an appeal against acquittal.

The Court applied Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., governing appeals against acquittal.

The substantive allegations involved Sections 307, 324 and 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

For applying Section 114 of the IPC, the Court stated that the prosecution must establish: (i) abetment by the accused, (ii) commission of the act pursuant to that abetment, and (iii) the accused’s presence when the act was committed.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the accused’s reinforced presumption of innocence and should interfere only in exceptional cases involving compelling reasons, perversity or an unreasonable view; the mere possibility of another view is insufficient.

The High Court found no cogent and acceptable evidence proving Rizwanaben’s abetment.

Although one witness, Shabanaben, stated that Rizwanaben remarked, “he is still alive; beat him,” the complainant, his mother and Shahebaz did not corroborate this allegation.

Madinaben did not attribute any abetment to Rizwanaben, while Shahebaz only referred to verbal abuse and did not state that Rizwanaben instigated the assault or specify the words allegedly used by her.

The Court held that her mere presence at the scene, even alongside the principal accused, could not establish abetment or attract the presumption under Section 114 of the IPC.

Since the Trial Court had provided cogent reasons for acquitting her and its view was reasonably supported by the evidence, the stringent standard for interference in an acquittal appeal was not satisfied.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Rizwanaben had abetted or instigated the commission of the alleged offence, and that the Trial Court’s acquittal was neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence.

Finding no substantial or compelling reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed Rizwanaben’s acquittal.