Unreliable dying declarations and absent proof of instigation cannot sustain conviction for abetment of suicide.

The deceased, Upendrakumar Kanaiyalal Jehani, was married to accused Jalpaben Girishbhai Soni on 29 November 2008. Matrimonial disputes arose between the deceased and his wife, following which both sides initiated civil and criminal proceedings, including proceedings under Section 498A IPC and a divorce proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 June 2010, Jalpaben’s parents, Girishkumar Dharani and Nainaben Dharani, threatened the deceased, causing him to consume zinc phosphate poison; he died on 17 June 2010.

The complainant, father of the deceased, lodged a complaint under Sections 306 and 114 IPC on 19 June 2010.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced sixteen documentary exhibits.

The trial court acquitted all accused on 30 May 2012. The State and the original complainant preferred appeals against acquittal, while accused No. 3 filed a criminal revision challenging the concurrent findings in separate proceedings.

The Court applied Sections 306 and 114 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, holding that conviction for abetment of suicide requires cogent proof of instigation, intentional aid or active conduct sufficiently proximate to the suicide.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act was applied to assess the reliability and admissibility of the alleged dying declaration.

The Court relied on Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750, and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, regarding the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide.

It also relied on Irfan alias Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2023 SC 4129, concerning safeguards in recording dying declarations.

Regarding appeals against acquittal, the Court applied the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169: although an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, an acquittal carries a reinforced presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible unless the trial court’s view is perverse or manifestly illegal.

The High Court found substantial weaknesses in the prosecution case.

The alleged dying declaration was considered unreliable because the Executive Magistrate did not record the required medical endorsement, the doctor did not confirm the deceased’s fitness, and the timing of the declaration was inconsistent with the post-mortem evidence indicating the presence of rigor mortis.

The statement allegedly recorded by the Investigating Officer also lacked a recorded time and did not inspire confidence.

The complaint was lodged three days after the incident in the background of ongoing matrimonial litigation, leading the Court to view it as a possible counterblast to proceedings initiated by the deceased’s wife.

The testimonies of the complainant and his family members contained material contradictions, while the alleged eyewitness’s statement was recorded approximately one and a half months after the incident and was therefore rightly treated with suspicion.

The Court further noted evidence suggesting the deceased’s prior suicide attempt and possible mental-health difficulties.

In the absence of credible evidence proving that the accused instigated or intentionally aided the suicide, the statutory ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 IPC were not established.

Applying the heightened restraint applicable to an appeal against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was reasonable and neither perverse nor legally infirm.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had abetted the deceased’s suicide or committed an offence under Sections 306 and 114 IPC.

Criminal Appeal No. 1471 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 768 of 2012 were dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was confirmed.

The bail bonds were cancelled and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.

Criminal Revision Application No. 479 of 2012 was also dismissed accordingly.