Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chinubhai Bhikhabhai Solanki on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 10/03/2026
Pronounced On : 25/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1048 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1540 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHINUBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR K J PANCHAL(2422) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.2012, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.7,
Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.141 of 2009, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IndianPenal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”). Vide order dated
02.08.2025, the appeal is abated qua respondent no.2. The
appeal is heard qua rest of the respondents.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the trial Court is that the complainant Sumanbhai
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Nanalal Chauhan lodged a complaint before Naranpura Police
Station, which was registered as C.R. No. I-438/2007 for
offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC. His
daughter Bhargavi was initially married to Mayankkumar
Dahyalal Mojagar in 1999 and had a daughter named Vidhi,
but the marriage ended in divorce and she started living
with her parents. Subsequently, Bhargavi remarried
Chinubhai Bhikhabhai Solanki on 07.02.2004 and started
residing with him and his family at Naranpura, Ahmedabad,
along with her daughter Vidhi, and another daughter Mani
was born from the said marriage. It is alleged that after the
marriage Bhargavi was subjected to cruelty and harassment
by her husband and in-laws for dowry and was repeatedly
pressurized to bring money from her parental home. The
accused persons allegedly demanded Rs.3,00,000 for the
admission of a family member in M.Pharm and quarrelled
with her when she failed to bring the amount. Due to
continuous harassment and cruelty, Bhargavi allegedly
committed suicide by hanging on 22.07.2007, leading the
complainant to lodge the present complaint against the
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
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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.141 of 2009. 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 11 witnesses and also produced 20
documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are
described in the impugned judgment.
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
Page 3 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
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. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondents would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court. The father of the complainant was
not present.
Page 4 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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 Criminal Appeal no.1048 of 2012 is filed by the
State and the Criminal Appeal No.1540 of 2012 is filed by
the father of the deceased.
8.2. The prosecution relied on the complaint which is filed on
28.07.2007, which is after 6 days from the date of incident,
as the incident had taken place on 22.07.2007, at 11.30 am.
The reason that has been stated in the complaint for not
filing the complaint on time was, as the complainant was
busy in the last rites of the deceased. In the complaint, the
father of the deceased has stated that the marriage of the
deceased with accused no.1 took place on 07.02.2004 and the
initial period of the marriage of deceased and the accused
no.1 was cordial and thereafter, the deceased was taunted for
not bringing any dowry from her parents’ house and that the
deceased should get money from her parents’ house and
accused nos.2 to 4 were instigating accused no.1, against the
deceased and that accused no.1 was time and again
physically harassing the deceased and that the deceased had
Page 5 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
informed the complainant about the said incident on
telephone and that accused no.4 i.e. the nephew of accused
no.1 was also harassing the deceased. It is also the case of
the prosecution in the complaint that the demand of
Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid for donation for admission of accused
no.4, was sought by accused no.3, from the deceased and as
the deceased has stated that she would not be in a position
to get the said amount on 20.07.2007, the accused nos.1 and
4 had quarrelled with the deceased and she was told to
leave the house and at that point of time the deceased along
with daughter-Vidhi who was her daughter from first
marriage, had reached Akhbarnagar circle at around 9.00 pm
and as the complainant came to know about the said fact, he
had instructed the deceased to come to her parental house
and thereafter on 21.07.2007 the friend and office colleague of
accused no.1 Vijaybhai had come to the parental house of the
deceased at Kalol and assured that the deceased would not
have any difficulty at her matrimonial home and thereafter
deceased with daughter Vidhi had come to her matrimonial
home, on 22.07.2007 and it is a case of prosecution that,
when the complainant had tried to communicate with the
deceased, at around 08.30, in the morning, at that point of
time, the phone was received by the deceased and at that
point of time the complainant, could hear that, there was
some quarrel between the deceased and accused no.1, wherein
Page 6 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
accused no.1, was shouting at the top of his voice and on
inquiry the deceased had informed the complainant that she
is tired of her life and she will live her life her way and
thereafter the complainant received a phone call from the
friend of accused no.1-Vijaybhai Joshi and he came to know
about the said incident and thereafter the complaint is filed.
8.3. The prosecution has examined as P.W.9 Dr.Tappan
Mehta who was on duty at V.S. Hospital vide exhibit-52, as
P.W.9. He had conducted the postmortem of the deceased and
the postmortem report is produced vide exhibit-55 and the
cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.
The prosecution has thereafter examined the aunty(maasi) of
the deceased Taraben Chauhan, vide exhibit-14, as P.W.1 and
in her deposition she has stated that she lives near the
matrimonial home and she has stated that the accused no.1
had called her and informed her about the incident and
thereafter, she had called her other sister Savitaben to
inform her about the said incident. In her deposition she has
stated that the deceased used to regularly come to her house
and used to inform that the accused used to physically and
mentally harass her and accused no.4 was demanding an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his admission and that she was
tired because of the said harassment. In cross-examination
she has admitted that the Police had taken her statement on
Page 7 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
29.07.2007.
8.4. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of
the deceased Manish Chauhan vide exhibit-15 as P.W.2. He
has in his deposition stated that the deceased used to come
to his residence and at that point of time the deceased had
informed that accused no.4 was demanding an amount
Rs.3,00,000/- and the said demand was made by accused no.1
and that accused no.2 that is the mother-in-law of the
deceased used to harass the deceased. It has also been stated
by the said witness that there were also disputes with
accused nos.1, 2 and 3 with respect to the girl child that the
deceased had got from her first marriage. He has also stated
that the Police had taken his statement on 23.07.2007 and
thereafter on 28.07.2007.
8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined Kanubhai
Parmar, the husband of Savitaben i.e. the uncle of the
deceased, vide exhibit-19 as P.W.3. He has stated that the
deceased used to come to her house and used to state that
there were quarrels at the matrimonial home. The said
witness had gone to Naranpura Police Station and had given
a statement which is produced vide exhibit-20. If the first
statement that has been given by the said witness is taken
into consideration which is produced vide exhibit 20, the said
Page 8 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
witness has stated that, he is not aware as to why the
deceased had taken the step of committing suicide. He has
also stated in his deposition that on or around May-2007, the
said witness and his family accused no.1 and the deceased
and other persons Sanjaybhai Dhamjibhai Gohil and his wife
and Amitbhai Babulal Sohangadat had gone to Jammu and
Kashmir, Vaishno Devi, Delhi, Haridwar, Rishikesh and other
places for vacation and had come back on around 25.05.2007.
He has also deposed before the Court that the deceased and
accused no.1, used to often come to their house and used to
freely roam around. The prosecution has thereafter examined
the other aunt of the deceased Savitaben vide exhibit 21 as
PW-4. She is the wife of P.W.3, in her deposition, she has
stated that deceased used to come to her house regularly and
deceased used to tell her that her mother-in-law and brother-
in-law and her husband used to taunt her and mentally and
physically harass her and used to demand money to be paid
for donation of the admission of accused no.4. The brother of
the deceased, Sureshbhai Chauhan has been examined as
PW-5 vide exhibit 24. He has also stated that the accused
used to mentally and physically harass the deceased and an
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded for paying donation for
the admission of accused no.4. The complainant-father of the
deceased-Suman Chauhan has been examined vide exhibit 35
as PW-6.
Page 9 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
8.6. The prosecution has produce the inquest Panchnama vide
exhibit-44 and the witness of the said Panchnama,
Jayashreeben Patel has been examined vide exhibit-43 as
PW-7. In her deposition, she has stated that she had good
relation with the deceased and that the house of the
deceased was opposite to the her house and the deceased and
the said witness used to meet often, while purchasing
vegetables and the deceased used to regularly come to her
house and she also used to regularly go to deceased’s house
and that the deceased used to talk freely about the people at
her matrimonial home and her parental home and that the
relation between the deceased and accused no.1 was cordial
and that there was no quarrel between them and the said
fact was informed by the deceased to her and that the
deceased and the accused no.1 along with 2 daughters Vidhi
from her first marriage and Mani from the marriage between
the deceased and the accused used to go out during festivals
and they also used to celebrate birthdays together.
8.7. The prosecution has thereafter produced a Panchnama of
production of clothes of the deceased vide exhibit-46 and the
panch witness of the said Panchnama Rashmikanth Chauhan
has been examined as PW-8 vide exhibit-45 who in his cross-
examination stated that he is a distant relative of the
Page 10 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
deceased. The prosecution has thereafter examined the friend
of the accused and the co-employee of accused no.1, Vijay
Joshi as PW-10 vide exhibit-56. The said witness has turned
hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined the Police
Officer at Naranapura Police Station-Divya Raviya vide
exhibit-65 as P.W.11, in his deposition he has admitted that
he has not taken the statement of the mother of the
deceased-Kalaben nor is the statement of another brother
Shaileshbhai Sumanbhai taken by the Investigating Officer.
8.9. If the entire evidence is taken into consideration, the
complainant has admitted that he came to know that the
accused were demanding Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.07.2007 and he
also admits that when they reached the house of accused
no.1, the Police were questioning all the relatives and his son
and at that time, he had not given a statement to the Police
that there was a demand of Rs.3,00,000/- for the admission
of accused no.4. He has also stated that he had not informed
the Police as to on which occasion the deceased was mentally
and physically harassed by the accused or when there was a
demand of dowry from the deceased. If the evidence of P.W.2
i.e. the brother of the deceased Manish Chauhan is taken
into consideration, in the Police Statement he has not stated
Page 11 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
that the dispute was because of daughter Vidhi who was the
child from the first marriage of the deceased. If the diary
that has been produced vide exhibit 26 is taken into
consideration, the said diary is in the handwriting of the
deceased and the said handwriting has been admitted by
P.W.5 i.e. the brother of the deceased Sureshbhai Sumanbhai.
8.10. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1-Taraben
Chauhan, it only transpires that the deceased had informed
her that she is tired and therefore, she will take some step.
Uncle of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.3 and
had gone to the Naranpura Police Station, in his statement
before the Police vide exhibit-20 has stated that he is not
aware of the reason why the deceased had committed suicide.
Moreover, from his deposition it also transpires that the
deceased along with other family members and accused no.1
had travelled with him to Jammu and Kashmir and other
places for vacation. From the evidence of the Doctor who has
been examined as P.W.9 vide exhibit-52, it transpires that
the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of
hanging. Though the reason for filing a late complaint is as
the complainant and his family members were in a shock
and therefore the complaint is filed on 28.07.2007 but the
fact remains that the case of the complainant was that on
the date of incident i.e. on 22.07.2007, on telephone he could
Page 12 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
hear that there was dispute between the accused no.1 and
the deceased but the said fact was not informed to the Police
when the Police had come to question and at that time also
the complainant does not give any details of harassment and
demand of Rs.3,00,000/- by the accused. Though the delay in
filing the FIR does not make the case of the complainant
improbable, but in the present case, it is not the case of the
complainant that he was not aware of the alleged demand of
Rs.3,00,000/- and that he was not aware that the accused
were allegedly harassing the deceased and therefore the
Sessions Court has rightly taken into consideration the delay
of 6 days in filing the complaint. It has also come on record
that accused no.1 was not staying with accused nos.2 and 3
and accused nos.2 and 3 were staying out of town. Accused
no.2 was staying at village Sami and accused no.3 was
staying at Ahwa district Dang.
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
Page 13 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 14 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 15 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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 to
drive 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 havetriggered the fatal act.
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.
Page 16 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 17 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 18 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 19 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 20 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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 give
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 mainPage 21 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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
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
Page 22 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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”,
“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.
Page 23 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
(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
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 learnedPage 24 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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.
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.
Page 25 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1048/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
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 26 of 26
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 01:02:12 IST 2026