Section 306 IPC requires proof of active instigation and a direct causal link proximate to the suicide.

The deceased, Nikitaben, married Shashikant (Respondent No. 1) on 14.02.2010

The prosecution alleged that after Nikita conceived, her mother-in-law (Respondent No. 2) questioned the child's paternity and subjected her to physical and mental harassment, supported by the husband

Nikita delivered a premature baby in her seventh month of pregnancy.

On 14.04.2011, Nikita committed suicide by hanging

A complaint was filed under Sections 498(A), 306, and 114 of the IPC.

The Trial Court (Sessions Case No. 128 of 2012) acquitted the accused on 31.07.2012, citing a failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

The State of Gujarat preferred this appeal against the acquittal

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

2. Whether there was a proximate link between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide

3. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or suffered from manifest illegality warranting interference under Section 378 of the CrPC

The Court primarily applied Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide), 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), and 107 (Definition of abetment) of the IPC.

It relied on the principle from Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, which defines 'instigation' as provoking, inciting, or encouraging an act with reasonable certainty of the consequence

It further applied the "proximity" rule from Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, stating that harassment without a positive act proximate to the time of occurrence cannot sustain a conviction under Section 306

Regarding the scope of acquittal appeals, the court followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, which established that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible

The Court observed significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.

PW-5 (mother) admitted that Respondent No. 1 had accepted paternity of the child, contradicting the alleged motive for harassment regarding the deceased's character

the deceased was shown to have existing health complications and was frequently taken for treatment by the accused, suggesting a lack of neglect

Crucially, the families had visited a temple together just four days before the incident, indicating no immediate matrimonial discord

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any "positive act" of incitement proximate to the suicide

Applying Section 107 IPC, the Court reasoned that domestic disagreements or a wife's distress do not ipso facto constitute abetment without evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link

The brother’s testimony (PW-6) was discounted as it contained facts not mentioned in his police statement

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s view was a "possible view" and lacked patent perversity, thus precluding interference under Section 378 CrPC

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal. The respondents were cleared of all charges under Sections 498(A), 306, and 114 IPC