Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arunbhai Babubhai Bin Virabhai Solanki … on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARUNBHAI BABUBHAI BIN VIRABHAI SOLANKI (ROHIT) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.04.2010, passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.4 of
2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of
Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the trial Court is that the complainant, Kanjibhai
Trikambhai Makwana, filed a complaint regarding the death
of his daughter, Minaben (the deceased). Minaben married
respondent-accused no. 1 on 07.05.2009. Following the
marriage, she resided with her husband and her in-laws (the
Page 1 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
other accused parties). It is alleged that after the marriage,
the accused persons, on various pretexts, began subjecting
Minaben to constant mental and physical torture. This
treatment included physical assaults. The prosecution contends
that due to this persistent harassment at the hands of the
accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself.
Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-
accused.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the
offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to
be registered as Sessions Case No.4 of 2010. The charge was
framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not
guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined 10 witnesses and also produced 24
documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment as under:
Page 2 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
ORAL EVIDENCE
Exhibit
No. Witness Name Relation / Role
No.I Complainant & Witnesses
Father of the
Kanjibhai Trikambhai
(1) deceased 13
Makwana, Witness No.1
(Complainant)Maniben Kanjibhai Mother of the
(2) 22
Makwana, Witness No.3 deceasedSunilbhai Kanjibhai Brother of the
(3) 23
Makwana, Witness No.4 deceasedKailashben w/o Hitishbhai Sister of the
(4) 24
Khushalbhai, Witness No.5 deceasedII Medical Witnesses
Dr. Ambalal Hirabhai
(1) Medical Officer 16
Patel, Witness No.2III Panch Witnesses
Ganpatsinh Harisinh
(1) Panch Witness 28
Solanki, Witness No.6Page 3 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Exhibit
No. Witness Name Relation / Role
No.IV Police Witnesses
Hamedaben Mansinh, P.S.O. (Police
(1) 33
Witness No.7 Sub-Officer)Poonambhai Dhanabhai
(2) D.Y.S.P. 35
Baranda, Witness No.8Yogendrasinh Khumansinh
(3) P.S.O. 37
Raulji, Witness No.9P.S.I.
Mahendrasinh Deepsinh
(4) (Investigating 39
Puvar, Witness No.10
Officer)Documentary Evidence
No. Description of Document Exhibit No.
(1) Original Complaint 14
(2) Panchnama of the Scene of Offense 29
(3) Inquest Panchnama 31
(4) Panchnama of the Clothes of the Deceased 26
Page 4 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
No. Description of Document Exhibit No.
Note to the Executive Magistrate, Anand
(5) 40
Rural(6) F.S.L. Mobile Van Officer’s Report 41
(7) Post-Mortem (PM) Form 42
(8) Note for conducting Post-Mortem 17
(9) Post-Mortem Note 18
(10) Certificate from Medical Officer, Vasad 19
(11) Letter written by Medical Officer, Vasad 20
(12) Certificate showing Cause of Death 21
Note to register Accidental Death based on
(13) 43
information(14) Note for registering the Offense 36
(15) Note from Taluka Circle Inspector, Anand 44
(16) Forwarding Letter by Circle Inspector, Anand 45
(17) Map of the Scene of Offense 27
Report to delete IPC Sec 302 and add IPC
(18) 46
Sec 306(19) Muddamal (Evidence) Dispatch Note 47
Page 5 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
No. Description of Document Exhibit No.
(20) F.S.L. Receipt 48
49-51, 53-
(21) F.S.L. Forwarding Letter
55
(22) F.S.L. Report 50-52
(23) Biology Department Report 54-56
(24) Serology Analysis Report 57
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
Page 6 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. Though learned advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati has
appeared on behalf of Nanavati and Company for respondent
nos.1 to 4, no arguments have been made by learned
advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court :
8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint that
Page 7 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
has been filed vide exhibit-14, which has been filed by the
father of the deceased Meenaben. It is the case of the
complainant that the deceased was married to accused no.1
Arun Solanki on 07.05.2009 and after the marriage, the
deceased was staying at Village Mogar, District Anand along
with accused nos.2 to 4 and in the said house, along with
accused nos.2 to 4, her sister-in-law Neetaben and her
husband were also staying and the husband i.e. accused no.1
was working at Jhagadia School and at around 13.15 hours
on 03.10.2009, the complainant got information that his
daughter Meenaben has expired and thereafter he reached
the village and on reaching the matrimonial home of the
deceased, he found that on the first floor room, the dead
body of deceased Meenaben was there and none from the
family of the in-laws of the deceased were present at the
said time and he could see that, there were black spots nearthe neck region of the deceased and in the complaint, it has
been stated that somebody had tried to strangle the deceased
and the entire complaint is based on the allegation that the
accused have strangled the deceased from her neck and killed
her. It has also been stated in the complaint that just prior
to one day from the date of incident i.e. on 02.10.2009 at
around 6.00 p.m., he received a telephonic message from his
daughter that accused no.1 had come from Village Jhagadia,
i.e. the place where he was working to his parents’ house at
Page 8 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Mogar.
8.2. It has also been alleged that whenever the complainant
tried to talk to the accused no.1 on his mobile, he would not
take the said call and there was a constant harassment by
the accused on the deceased, but the deceased was not
informing the said fact to the complainant and the accused
no.1, would never talk to the complainant and though there
was a facility of a residence at the workplace of accused
no.1, he was not taking the deceased to his workplace to
reside with him and the entire complaint is based on the
fact that the accused in collusion with each other have
murdered the deceased.
8.3. The prosecution has examined Kanji Makwana vide
Exhibit-13 as P.W.1. He is a complainant and the father ofthe deceased. It is the case of the complainant that, there
was mental harassment from accused no.1 to the deceased.
The deceased was not permitted to reside with accused no.1
at his workplace at Jhagadia and after 05.08.2009, the
deceased was not residing at the workplace of the accused
no.1 and the complainant states that the said fact was a
harassment to the deceased that the accused no.1 did not
take the deceased with him at village Jhagadia and made
her stay with the in-laws of the deceased. It also transpires
Page 9 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
in his oral evidence that, just before one day from the date
of incident, i.e. 02.10.2009, the accused no.1 had reached his
parental house at Mogar at 06.30, was informed through
message by the deceased and on the next date, the deceased
had taken the aforesaid step of hanging herself. It has been
stated that the deceased had taken the step as there was a
constant harassment from the accused nos.2 to 4.
8.4. It is also stated that the deceased was not kept properly
at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, it has been
admitted that, after the marriage on 21.06.2009, the deceased
had gone to reside at Ranipur with the accused no.1 till
05.08.2009 and after 05.08.2009, the deceased was staying at
her in-laws’ house at Mogar. The complainant also admits
that after completion of 15 days of Raksha Bandhan in the
year 2009, the accused nos.2 and 4 had come to take the
deceased from her parental house.
8.5. It has also been stated that the deceased had stayed at
Ranipur with accused no.1 at his workplace for 40 days. He
has also admitted that within that 40 days, the deceased had
never sent him any message and that the complainant does
not know that what had transpired at Ranipur, where the
deceased was staying with her husband i.e. accused no.1. In
cross-examination, at paragraph no.6, he has admitted that
Page 10 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
the complaint was filed by him only to find out the reason
for the cause of death of the deceased. He has also admitted
in the said paragraph that it is true that after reaching the
matrimonial home of the deceased at 04.30 and after filing
the complaint at 07.15 hours, till that time he was not
aware what was the reason of the cause of death of the
deceased. At paragraph no.7 of his deposition, he has stated
that he has only suspicion that either deceased was killed by
the accused or the deceased had herself taken the said step
and to find the answer to the said fact, he had filed a
complaint. He has also admitted that in his police statement,
he had only mentioned that deceased was killed by the
accused and other than that there was no other reason given
by the complainant to the Police Officers.
8.6. The prosecution has examined Dr. Ambalal Patel vide
exhibit-16 as P.W.2. He was a Medical Officer at Primary
Health Center, Vadod and who had conducted the post-
mortem and the post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit
18 and the cause of death as per the said post-mortem
report which was given was provisional cause of death is
asphyxia following hanging.
8.7. The questions that were placed by the in-charge Police
officer to the Medical Officer were answered by the said
Page 11 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Medical Officer and were produced vide Exhibit-19, which
states that the time at which the deceased had expired was
18 to 36 hours. There were no injury marks on the neck of
the deceased. He had also opined that the death was because
of suicide. There were no marks of fight that might had
taken place before the incident. He has also opined that the
odhani i.e. the dress was used to hang herself.
8.8. The FSL report was produced vide Exhibit-50 and there
was no poison found in the body of the deceased. The
forensic report was also conducted with respect to the dress
of the deceased, which is produced vide Exhibit-54. The blood
sample also does not state that any poison is found in the
body of the deceased.
8.9. The certificate of cause of death as given by the Medical
Officer, PHC Vadod, Taluka and District Anand is produced
vide Exhibit-21 and the final cause of death is Asphyxia
following hanging.
8.10. The mother of the deceased Maniben Makwana has
been examined vide Exhibit-22 as P.W.3. She has reiterated
what has been stated by the complainant in the complaint.
She has stated the fact that the accused no.1 did not want
to stay with the deceased was informed by accused no.1, to
Page 12 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
the sister of the deceased-Kailash. In a cross-examination, the
said witness has stated that, the deceased had never
informed her about any harassment, which was done by the
accused on the deceased and accused no.1 was never talking
to the state witness and therefore, she suspected that accused
no.1 has killed the deceased.
8.11. The mother of the deceased had in her cross-
examination stated that, other than the fact that the accused
has killed the deceased, she has not stated anything to the
Police Department and at paragraph no.10 of her deposition,
she has stated that only on the ground of suspicion, she has
filed the complaint.
8.12. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of
the deceased Sunil Makwana vide Exhibit 23 as P.W.4. He
has stated that the deceased had informed him that the
nature of accused no.1 was short tempered and the deceased
did not inform him or anybody about the harassment that
was done on the accused to save the reputation of her
father.
8.13. At paragraph no.4 of his examination-in-chief, the said
witness states that he is not aware as to what could be the
cause of the death of the deceased but as his sister i.e.
Page 13 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Meenaben is not alive, he considers the accused liable for the
same. At paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination he has
again reiterated that till his cross-examination, he is not
aware of the real cause of the death of his sister. The
prosecution has thereafter examined, the sister of the
deceased Kailashben who P.W.3 states that accused no.1 had
informed Kailashben that she does not want to stay with the
deceased. Kailashben has been examined vide Exhibit 24 as
P.W.5. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that the
Principal of the School where accused no.1 has been working
was informed about the harassment of accused no.1 on the
deceased and the said Principal had also scolded the accused
no.1, but the prosecution has neither examined the said
School Principal working at Jhagadia nor his statement is
filed before this Court.
8.14. In her cross-examination at paragraph no.1, she has
stated that from her discussion with the deceased, she could
realize that the deceased wanted to stay at her matrimonial
home and the deceased had never informed her that her life
is endangered, if she stays with her in-laws. She has also
informed that from her talks with the deceased, she could
only realize that there were domestic issues on travel matters
and that the said witness had never informed the
complainant of not sending the deceased back to her
Page 14 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
matrimonial home.
8.15. Tha panchnama of scene of offence is produced vide
Exhibit-29. The inquest Panchnama is produced vide exhibit-
39. The panch witness Ganpatsinh Solanki has been
examined as P.W.6 vide Exhibit-28. The P.S.O. at Vasad
Police Station Amitaben has been examined as P.W.7 vide
Exhibit 33. The Station Diary in which, it is noted that
there was an accidental death is produced vide Exhibit 34.
8.16. The D.Y.S.P. Anand Division, Poonambhai Bharda has
been examined as P.W.8 vide Exhibit 35. Initially a case of
accidental death was registered and it was before the
D.Y.S.P. that a complaint has been filed by the complainant.
The prosecution has examined vide Exhibit 37, Yogendra
Ravalji as P.W.9 who was the Head Constable who had
registered the Station Diary, which is produced vide Exhibit-
38, to register a case under Section 302, 498A and 114 and
forwarded to Inspector Pawar who has been examined as
P.W. 10 vide Exhibit 39 who was the Police Sub-Inspector. In
his deposition he has also stated that accused no.4 i.e. the
mother-in-law of the deceased had given intimation about the
death of the deceased even before the complaint is filed. At
paragraph no.2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that
considering the statement given by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5
Page 15 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
before the Police Station, there was no complaint of deceased
committing suicide because of the harassment of the accused.
At paragraph no.5 of the cross-examination, it transpires that
the said Investigating Officer had taken statement of the
neighbours at the Matrimonial Home of the deceased and
from none of the said statement, the case of the prosecution
could be proved. He has also admitted that, there is no
evidence as to giving details of how, what and when the
accused have harassed the deceased. The Sessions Court has
taken into consideration the oral evidence of all the witnesses
and from the entire evidence of the prosecution, the said case
is on the ground that there was suspicion on the minds of
the family members of the deceased that the accused have
killed the deceased. The said witnesses have not narrated
any incident which indicates that the accused did not have
any other option but to commit suicide.
8.17. All the family members have only narrated the fact
that the deceased was killed by the accused. But the fact
remains that the charge is under Section 306, 498(A) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has not
been able to prove even from the medical evidence, the
evidence of the Police Officer and the family members that
the accused had instigated and abetted the deceased to
commit suicide.
Page 16 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
8.18. suicide meaning:
As per “Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th
Edition, p.686.” “A finding of suicide must be
on evidence of intention. Every act of self
destruction is, in common language described
by the word ‘suicide’ provided it is an
intentional act of a party knowing the
probable consequence of what he is about.
Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is
the essential legal ingredient.” Therefore, while
considering this aspect, the provisions of
Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding
the abetment and the suicide has to be
considered. There has to be evidence, by which
it could be said that the respondent accused
had instigated the deceased in such a manner
or by creating the circumstances, which has
led the deceased to commit suicide. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 750 – Gangula Mohan Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh has observed: “The
word ‘suicide’ in itself is nowhere defined in
Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and
import is well known and requires no
Page 17 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
explanation. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means
‘killing’, thus implying an act of self killing. In
short a person committing suicide must commit
it by himself, irrespective of the means
employed by him in achieving his object of
killing himself. The provision of abetment is
defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal
Code. The ingredients are required to be
established. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this
judgment has observed that ‘This Court in
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with
the dictionary meaning of the words
‘instigation’ and ‘goading’. The Court opined
that there should be intention to provoke,
incite or encourage the doing of an act by the
latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is
different from the other. Each person has his
own idea of self-esteem and self respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any
straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.
Each case has to be decided on the basis of
its own facts and circumstances.”
Page 18 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission
on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of
doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.
The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive
evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the
conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided
and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner
that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit
suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not
been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit
offence of abatement. There is also no close connection
between the accused’s action and the deceased’s choice to
commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to
encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or
insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to
end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove the direct connection between the
incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to
Page 19 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been
able to prove by accusation of harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused close to the time
of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit
suicide.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be
said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically
trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these
modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not
punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional
encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
Page 20 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or
episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused’s conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention todrive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have
triggered the fatal act.
Page 21 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
9.7 No material has been brought on record
demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the
suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there
evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The
essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental
state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not
established.
9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the
foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation
is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
Page 22 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission
of said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active role by act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of
suicide. It has been further observed that the act of
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
Page 23 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
Page 24 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija
Page 25 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under appeal, will ordinarily
suffice.”
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
“The powers of the High Court in an appeal
from order of acquittal to reassess the
evidence and reach its own conclusions
under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the order
of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it
is desirable that the High Court should givePage 26 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
proper weight and consideration to the view
of the Trial Court with regard to the
credibility of the witness, the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused, the right
of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and the slowness of appellate Court in
justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the
witness. It is settled law that if the main
grounds on which the lower Court has
based its order acquitting the accused are
reasonable and plausible, and the samecannot entirely and effectively be dislodged
or demolished, the High Court should not
disturb the order of acquittal.”
16. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court’s interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
Page 27 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate
court while dealing with an appeal against
an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal
is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”,Page 28 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
“distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”,
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal
than to curtail the power of the court to
review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear
in mind that in case of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
Page 29 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
the trial court.”
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in
the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held
in paragraph 24 as under:
“24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled
legal position that the interference with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the learned
trial Judge would be warranted by the High
Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers
from patent perversity; that the same is based
on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the accused
is possible from the evidence available on
record.”
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Page 30 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s – accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
URIL RANA
Page 31 of 31
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
