Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Mansukhbhai Makadiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Upleta (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 174/2007 on 29.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 7 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "Dowry Act" for short).
1.1 Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala for the respondents submits that the respondent no. 2 – Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Makadia has expired on 12.06.2015 and submitted the copy of the death certificate issued by the Department of Health (Birth & Death), Rajkot Municipal Corporation which is taken on record. The certificate shows that the respondent no. 2 – Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Makadia has expired on 12.06.2015 and the death has been registered with Rajkot Municipal Corporation, Department of Health (Birth &
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or provocation for a conviction under abetment of suicide; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires direct evidence of intent or proximate acts by accused to abet suicide, with appellate courts deferring to trial findings unless clearly perverse.
The prosecution must establish clear evidence of instigation for abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A; clear evidence of instigation is necessary.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision is unreasonable or based on manifest illegality.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if there is clear evidence of illegality or perverse reasoning in the trial court's judg....
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with particular emphasis on direct evidence of instigation to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or incitement to suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
