Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Hitendrasinh Harisinh Zala - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2008
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Advocates: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)
Respondent Advocate: MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422)

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.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 378(1)(3), 207, 209, 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 306, 114, 107 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 7 - Acquittal appeal - Powers of appellate court to reappreciate evidence but must respect presumption of innocence and trial court’s findings unless perverse - Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires proof of intent, instigation, or direct acts proximate to suicide - Absence of direct evidence linking accused to deceased’s decision to consume poison at parental home. (Paras 7, 9, 11)

(B) Appellate court cannot interfere with acquittal if trial court’s view is reasonable, even if alternative conclusions are possible - Trial court’s findings on minor contradictions and lack of direct evidence must be respected. (Paras 7, 11)

(C) Conviction under Section 306 IPC necessitates clear proof of abetment through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid - Merely alleging general harassment without proximate acts or intent to compel suicide insufficient. (Paras 9, 15-17)

Facts of the case:
Deceased Truptiba allegedly committed suicide by consuming poison at her parental home after being harassed by her husband and in-laws. Prosecution claimed the accused’s dowry demands and harassment led to her suicide. Trial court acquitted accused due to insufficient evidence of abetment. State appealed, arguing prosecution proved case beyond doubt.

Findings of Court:
Judgment upholds trial court’s acquittal. Prosecution failed to establish direct acts or intent by accused to abet suicide. Trial court reasonably found contradictions and lack of evidence linking accused to deceased’s final actions. No evidence of harassment proximate to suicide.

Issues: Whether prosecution proved abetment under Section 306 IPC and if appellate court should overturn acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court properly applied law by requiring direct evidence of abetment. Appellate court deferred to trial court’s reasonable findings, emphasizing presumption of innocence and deference to factual assessments.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

S. V. PINTO, J.

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 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2007 on 11.07.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as " IPC " for short) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

1.1] The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1] The accused No. 1 was the husband, the accused No. 2 - mother-in-law, accused No. 3 - sister-in-law and accused No. 4 - father- in-law of deceased Truptiba. That all the accused used to mentally and physically harass the deceased and if the deceased would switch on the lights or fans, they would taunt her asking whether her father would pay the bills and would also harass her about dowry and physically torture her to such an extent that on 1-10-2006 at around 2.30 am, the deceased consumed poison at Nanavadiya village and committed suicide. The complainant Jitendrasingh Karansinh Jadeja, the brother of the complainant, filed the complaint on 3-10-2006 at Kotada Sangani Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No. 128 of 2006 before Kotada Sangani Police Station, Rajkot under Sections 3 06 , 498-A, 323 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed chargesheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 25 of 2007.

2.3] The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 11, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4] The prosecution produced seven oral evidences and twenty two documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 49, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecutio