Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ashokbhai Chhotubhai Vasava on 28 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1459 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ASHOKBHAI CHHOTUBHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 28/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against judgment and order dated 07th January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.3 of 2007, by which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined
2. The facts of the case can be stated as under.
2.1 The complainant viz., Rakeshbhai Pratapbhai Vasava is discharging his duty as Male Nurse at Sagbara Community Health Centre and residing at Sagbara. The sister of the complainant viz., Sadhna (the deceased) married with Ashokbhai Chhotubhai Vasava (the respondent- accused) on 16th May, 2005 as per custom and, thereafter, she started residing with the respondent-accused. Shortly after marriage, she complained of ill treatment, and harassment torture by the respondent-accused. On 23rd June, 2005, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on account of the mental and physical torture being meted out to her at the hand of the respondents-accused. The accused person is responsible for inspiring her to commit suicide and thereby committed offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined Accordingly, offence came to be registered as C.R.No.1-65/2005 with Valiya Police Station. 2.2 On the basis of complaint, the investigation was embarked upon. The inquest panchnama was came to be drawn, filled up the Maranottar Form and made arrangements for sending dead body for postmortem. The scene of offence panchnama came to be drawn in the presence of panchas, statements of various witnesses came to be recorded and respondent-accused came arrested. 2.3 On conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected against the respondent-accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case against the respondent-accused, chargesheet came to be filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Valiya.
2.4 Since the case registered against the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined Court of Sessions, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Valiya committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bharuch under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came to be registered as Sessions Case No.3 of 2007.
2.5 On committal, the case was transferred and placed for trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch, who had initially framed charge vide Exh.3. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The statement of respondent-accused was recorded vide Exh.4, wherein the respondent- accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
2.6 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as following 13 witnesses.
PW Name of Witness Exh.
No. No.
1 Rasikbhai Shivabhai Vasava 6
Page 4 of 31
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025
undefined
2 Dr.Amarendra Narayansing 8
3 Shardaben Motibhai Vasava 11
4 Kamlaben Pratapbhai Vasava 12
5 Rupsingbhai Gimiyabhai (P.S.O.) 14
6 Raysingbhai Bhayjibhai Vasava 18
7 Chandaben Gordhanbhai Vasava 20
8 Somabhai Sukabhai Vasava 21
9 Ambubhai Navabhai Vasava 23
10 Rakeshbhai Pratapbhai Vasava- 24
complainant
11 Vidyaben Pratapbhai Vasava 27
12 Madhabhai Ranjitsinh Ganava 28
(P.S.O.)
13 Nareshbhai Ambalal Muniya (Deputy 30
Superintendent of Police)
2.7 The prosecution has also produced
following 11 documentary evidence.
Sr. Particulars Exh.
No. No.
1 Arrest Panchnama 7
2 Postmortem Note 9
3 Postmortem Examination 10
Certificate
4 Complaint given by mother of the 13
deceased
5 Copy of Station Diary 14
6 Janava Jog Entry No.6 16
7 Yadi wrote for registration of 17
the offence
8 Inquest Panchnama 19
Page 5 of 31
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025
undefined
9 Panchnama of Scene of Offence 22
10 Complaint 25
11 Letter written by the deceased 29
2.8 After recording the evidence of the
prosecution witness was over, the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch explained to circumstances evidence of the respondent-accused the appearing against him in the the prosecution witness and recorded his further statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the further statement, accused denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. According to the accused, he has been roped in a false case of death. However, accused has neither led any evidence nor did he examine any witness in support of his defence.
2.9 At the end of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch was pleased to acquit the respondent- accused for the offence under Sections 498(A) and Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined 306 of the Indian Penal Code holding inter alia that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of acquittal dated 07th January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, the State has approached this Court by way of present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code, 1973.
4. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni for the appellant - State.
4.1 It was contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant that the judgment and order of acquittal is against the provisions of law. It was contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record in its true perspective and that has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It was further contended Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined that the ingredients of all the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code were proved, however, the learned trial court had miserably failed in construing the same that too by ignoring overwhelming evidence against the accused and that has resulted into perversity. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through entire oral as well as documentary evidence and submitted that the charges against the accused person stands proved and thereby, the impugned order of acquittal be quashed and set aside by recording conviction against the accused person in the interest of justice.
5. Having heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State and having perused the material on record, the short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge recording Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined acquittal of the accused from the offences under Sections 498A and 306, IPC, is justified?
6. Before deciding the aforesaid question, at the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Appeal is against the order of acquittal. Thus, in my view, the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the principles governing acquittal appeals deserves to be taken note of.
6.1 The Apex Court has very succinctly explained in catena of decisions the principles which are required to be kept in mind while deciding the acquittal appeals. In the case of M.S. Narayan Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 39], the Apex Court has discussed the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. Relevant observations in para-54 of the decision is reproduced hereinbelow.
"54. In any event the High Court entertained Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
6.2 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], the Apex Court laid down the following principles.
"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, reppreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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 10 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 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."
6.3 In case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran [(2007) 3 SCC 75], the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para-16 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed as under.
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
6.4 Yet in another decision, the law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh [2007 AIR SCW 5553] and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s v. State of M.P. [2007 AIR SCW 5589]. 6.5 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/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.
6.6 In case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh [(2009) SCC 749], the Apex Court in paras-10 and 11 has held as under.
"10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence."
6.7 Yet in an another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah v. State. Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu [AIR 2013 SC 321], the Apex Court in para-4 has held as under:
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]"
6.8 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [AIR 1981 SC 1417], wherein it is held as under:
"... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate 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."
6.9 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
6.10 The Apex Court in Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka [JT 2013 (7) SC 66] has held as under.
"That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
6.11 In a very recent decision in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka [2024 SCC OnLine SC 561], the Apex Court has reiterated the principles governing the appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court, which can be quoted as under:
"(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;
(c) 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."Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined
7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid proposition of law, so as to decide the aforesaid question posed in this Appeal, in my considered opinion, it would be apt to take notice of the legal exposition by the Apex Court in cases of Sections 306 and 498A, IPC. In case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2024) 3 SCC 573], the Apex Court, after having considered the catena of decisions, held thus as under.
"25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.
26. We take notice of the fact that the High Court has laid much emphasis on Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
27. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act reads thus:-
"113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.─When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.─For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
28. This Section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act were amended keeping in view the dowry death problems in India.
29. Section requires proof (1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.
30. Although, it is not necessary for us to refer to Section 113B of the Evidence Act which raises presumption as to dowry death yet with a view to indicate the fine distinction between the two presumptions we are referring to Section 113B. In Section 113A the legislature has used the word 'may', whereas in Section 113B the word used is 'shall'.
31. In this appeal, we are concerned with Section 113A of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined
32. What is important to note is that the term 'the Court may presume having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband' would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
33. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under section 113A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty.
34. Section 113A has been interpreted by this Court in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 173, Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(3) SCC 309, and Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana, 1991(1) SCC 371.
35. This Court has held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words 'may presume'. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard.
36. In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under Section 113A.
Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined
37. Before we part with this matter, we may only observe that the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment. It is exactly what has happened in this case. It did not take more than 10 minutes for this Court to reach to an inevitable conclusion that the conviction of the appellant convict for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is not sustainable in law. The ordeal for the appellant started some time in 1993 and is coming to the end in 2024, i.e. almost after a period of 30 years of suffering. At the same time, we are also mindful of the fact that a young woman died leaving behind her 6 months old infant. No crime should go unpunished. But at the same time, the guilt of the accused has to be determined in accordance with law. To put it in other words, the guilt of the accused has to be determined on the basis of legal evidence on record.
38. The question is : On what and where did the two courts falter? In our opinion, the two courts faltered as they failed to apply the correct principles of law to the evidence on record on the subject of abetment of suicide. The two courts got enamoured by just three things, (i) the deceased committed suicide within seven years of marriage, (ii) the accused was demanding money from the parents of the deceased for starting some business, and
(iii) the deceased used to remain tense. We do not say that these are irrelevant consideration. All the three aspects are relevant. But there are settled principles of law to be made applicable to the matters of the present type.
39. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence. Appreciation of evidence in criminal matters is a tough task and when it comes to appreciating the evidence in cases of abetment of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, it is more arduous. The court Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined must remain very careful and vigilant in applying the correct principles of law governing the subject of abetment of suicide while appreciating the evidence on record. Otherwise it may give an impression that the conviction is not legal but rather moral.
40. For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 7.1 The decision of the Apex Court in case of Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District [2025 SCC Online 987] also deserves to be taken note of. The relevant paragraphs are quoted thus as under.
"14. What turns out primarily from the sequence of events, statements and the suicide note is that from 11.11.2013 until the actual date of suicide i.e. 09.12.2013 there has been no contact whatsoever either in person or by phone or any other means between the deceased or his relatives and his wife or any of the other accused which would indicate continuous harassment or torture or any sort of pressure at the hands of the accused Appellants on the deceased. Therefore, there is no proximity of any harassment or instigation prior to the incident of suicide having taken place. Otherwise also the contents of the FIR do not in itself indicate any active or direct act which can be said to have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving him no option but to push the deceased into a position that he committed suicide. From the suicide note, no abetment can be said to have been established that the accused instigated the deceased or there being any persistent cruelty or harassment which would make out an offence of Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined abetment of suicide. Merely on the basis of the allegations of harassment and that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort on the part of the Appellants, till the time of occurrence which can be said to have led or compelled the deceased to have committed suicide, the offence has not been made out. Mens rea cannot be presumed, but must be ostensibly present and visible, which is missing in the present case. It involves a mental process of instigating a person and without a positive act on the part of the Appellants which can be said to either to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the ingredients of the offence cannot be said to have been present.
15. Section 306 requires a person having committed suicide as a first requirement but for abetment of such commission, which is essential, the ingredients must be found in Section 107 IPC. The requirement of abetment under Section 107 IPC is instigation, secondly engagement by himself or with other person in any conspiracy for doing such thing or act or a legal omission in pursuance to that conspiracy and thirdly intentionally aids by any act or an illegal omission of doing that thing. In large number of judgments of this Court it stands established that the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. (M. Arjunan V. State represented by its inspector of Police)
16. Similarly, in the case of Ude Singh and Others V. State of Haryana, it has been observed in para 16 as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
17. These being the essential ingredients for the offence of abetment to suicide, and the said ingredients having not been fulfilled, the further continuation of proceedings would not be sustainable. The other evidence such as statements, sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, apart from the suicide note, does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution, particularly when the foundation of the case is the suicide note itself. With the very element of abetment conspicuously absent from the allegations made in the FIR which is primarily based upon the suicide note, the essential requirements for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC remain unfulfilled. As such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court cannot permit such proceedings to degenerate into instruments of harassment or unjust prosecution." 7.2 Although the said judgment is rendered in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, 1973, the law discussed with regard to Section 306, IPC with regard to essential ingredients for the offences of abetment of Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined suicide deserves worth consideration. 7.3 In case of Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana [(2008) 5 S.C.R. 1200], the Apex Court, while explaining the scope and ambit of Sections 107 and 109, IPC, has observed as under.
"8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
9. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418) this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence
11. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P.(1995 AIR SCW 4570)].
12. When the factual scenario is examined, it is clear that the accused has been described as a sexual pervert and that he had behaved like an animal and the deceased had tolerated the insulting manner in which he behaved. They were married in court. It was stated that the accused was impotent and he was trying to defame the deceased for having relationship with ladies.
13. The most significant part of the letter the deceased had written is as follows:
"I desired to kill you alongwith us but no, if you have any sense of shame you will die Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined as a result of the sequence of events. But it do not make any difference for shameless person because these abuses will sound as correct if you realize your capacity. You have not spent even eight days in a period of eight years in peace with me. You yourself are responsible for death of these children. Flowers had been prayed for from the deities of your family regarding whom you disclosed "they are not mine they are with me from my friend. (girl friend) on, you, the condemned the day children will be born as a result of co-habitation of a woman with woman, a woman will stop giving birth to man like you."
14. Above being the factual scenario, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been established. Therefore, the conviction as recorded cannot be maintained. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant be released forthwith unless required in connection with other case."
8. Now, I would like to proceed to evaluate the fundamental evidence i.e. Exh.29 - suicide note. For the easy reference, free translation of the said suicide note is extracted hereinbelow.
"Everyone in this house treats me very well, but Ashok doesn't know how to give happiness to his wife. I am not satisfied with anything from Ashok. I feel that Ashok's previous wife must have divorced him for the same reason, but I neither want to remarry, nor do I want to give divorce. That's why I am shortening my life. (He cannot even provide satisfactory physical intimacy.) I want to tell Mummy that she should let Kalu marry whoever he wishes. Kalu, take care of Mummy."
8.1 On perusal of the aforesaid suicide Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined note, it appears that the deceased was aggrieved by being not satisfied and/or the accused was not able to satisfy her physical needs. Thus, in my considered opinion, the grievance of the deceased cannot be equated with mens rea on part of the accused-husband and/or direct or indirect act to commit suicide. May be, the accused-husband was not able to satisfy the deceased-wife but that would not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It is a settled law that essential ingredients of Section 306, IPC are (i) abetment, (ii) intention of the accused to aid or abet deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, not satisfying wife's physical requirement would not fall either within the scope of abetment or within the scope of intention of the accused to aid, instigate or abet to commit suicide.
8.2 Over and above, I have perused the oral evidence of the near and close relatives of the Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined deceased such as Shardaben Motibhai Vasava-PW 3 (Exh.11) who happens to be the aunt of the deceased, Kamlaben Pratapbhai Vasava-PW4 (Exh.12)
- mother of the deceased, Rakeshbhai Pratapbhai Vasava-PW 10 (Exh.24) - brother of the deceased, Vidyaben Pratapbhai Vasava-PW 11 (Exh.27) - sister of the deceased. On cumulative evaluation of oral evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses would only go to suggest that at some point of time the deceased made grievance before them with regard to not being physically satisfied by her husband-accused herein. It is nobody's case that the accused has extended any cruelty to the deceased. This being the position, it is very difficult to hold that the accused-husband, as such, has abeted the deceased to commit suicide. In no stretch of imagination, not satisfying physically would come within the scope and ambit of Section 306, IPC. In the facts of the case, the accused has been described, as per the dying declaration, as not properly satisfying the Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined deceased. According to this Court, the cause of suicide, unfortunately, is due to hypersensitive nature of the deceased. Because of non- satisfaction of physical need, committing suicide would not be said to be the last resort. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306, IPC. There is no convincing proof of act of instigating or aiding to the commission of offence and thereby, in my view, the learned trial court was perfectly justified in recording acquittal of the accused.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion, that the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court cannot be faltered. I did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to interfere in this case. The judgment and order of acquittal, acquitting the present respondent - original accused by the Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch is just and proper. The evidence on record will not permit this Court to take a different view than that of taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even looking to the present Appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial court. Even looking to the evidence on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not persuade this Court to take a different view than that of taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
10. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent herein - original accused. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. I am, therefore, in Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1459/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/05/2025 undefined complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below, and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
I answer the question accordingly.
11. In the result, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed.
12. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 07th January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.3 of 2007 is hereby confirmed.
13. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue Jun 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 13 22:57:25 IST 2025