Mere suspicion of illicit relationship and unsubstantiated dowry claims do not constitute abetment to suicide.

The deceased, Pooja Barman, committed suicide by hanging on 01.06.2021, within seven years of her marriage to the respondent, Rahul Barman.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent subjected the deceased to mental harassment due to an alleged illicit relationship with another woman and physical assault, leading to charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

The trial court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna) acquitted the respondent on 09.07.2022, finding no evidence of instigation or abetment.

The State appealed this acquittal, seeking leave to appeal and condonation of delay.

1. Whether the acts of the respondent amounted to "instigation" or "abetment" of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the trial court's view is a "plausible view" based on the evidence.

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

It relied on S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, establishing that abetment requires a clear mens rea and an active act intended to push the deceased to commit suicide.

M. Mohan v. State, which held that without a positive act of instigation, a conviction cannot be sustained.

Regarding the scope of appeals against acquittal, the court followed H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, which mandate that if the trial court’s view is a "legally plausible view," the appellate court cannot overturn it simply because a contrary view is possible.

The Court observed that the testimonies of the deceased’s relatives (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-16) regarding dowry demands were "general and omnibus," lacked specific dates or details, and were never reported during the deceased's lifetime.

The Court noted material exaggerations where relatives claimed murder despite the medical evidence (PW-13) showing no external injuries or signs of assault, thus damaging their credibility.

Regarding the alleged illicit relationship, the prosecution failed to produce subscriber records (CAF) for the suspect’s phone number or examine the woman involved (Jyoti), making the 69-second call insufficient to prove instigation.

The court determined that the prosecution failed to establish a direct or indirect act of incitement in close proximity to the suicide as required by law.

The court upheld the presumption of innocence reinforced by the acquittal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 22107 of 2022) was dismissed, and the criminal appeal was dismissed.