Wife Never Told Father Of Harassment; Gujarat HC Upholds Husband, In-Laws’ Acquittal In Suicide Case

The State appealed the acquittal of the accused— the deceased’s husband and parents-in-law—of offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The prosecution alleged that the accused harassed the deceased, demanded Rs. 20,000 for house construction, and taunted her for being childless; she died by suicide by hanging.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused on 18 June 2016.

On appeal, the High Court reappreciated the prosecution evidence

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed

Sections 306 and 107 IPC require proof that the accused abetted the suicide by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid; Section 306 requires the requisite mens rea and a sufficiently proximate positive act, and mere harassment without evidence of such abetment is insufficient.

The Court relied on Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, quoting the principles in Amalendu Pal, Madan Mohan Singh, and Ramesh Kumar

The defence also invoked Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act; the judgment noted that the presumption requires proof of the foundational fact of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

The Court found no clear, cogent or reliable evidence proving cruelty, a dowry demand, or an act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused.

The complainant had not alleged harassment or suspicion during the accidental-death inquiry, and the deceased had made no complaint during her lifetime.

The complainant and her brother acknowledged that she had not told them of ill-treatment; another relative denied any dispute and said she was treated well.

The Court treated the omissions and improvements in the later prosecution account as significant, and concluded that the evidence did not establish the foundational cruelty necessary for the alleged offences or the elements of abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC

The trial court’s assessment was therefore a reasonable view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity warranting interference

It dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the acquittal of all three accused.

The bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court