The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused instigated or abetted the suicide for a conviction under Section 306 IPC.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 114 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on the grounds of benefit of doubt, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 11)

(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The accused were alleged to have abetted the suicide of Hameerbhai Kanabhai due to threats and harassment. The deceased committed suicide by jumping into a river. (Paras 2.1, 10)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution did not establish that the accused had incited or abetted the suicide, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the charges of abetment of suicide against the accused. (Paras 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that to convict under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or abetment, which was lacking in this case. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.

Table of Content
1. prosecution's failure to prove (Para 3)
2. review of evidence (Para 4 , 5)
3. principles of acquittal appeals (Para 6 , 7)
4. requirements for conviction (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. acquittal confirmed (Para 12 , 13)

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2007 on 06-07-2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court by giving the benefit of doubt has accquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short).

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 Maldabhai Arjanbhai Ahir had some dispute with the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and he had given an application in the police station against the accused, which was known to the accused, and the accused were threatening him to withdraw the complaint or to leave the village and go elsewhere. That as the accused were frequently threatening and physically and mentally harassing the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai, he got fed-up and on 09.09.2003, some time before 19.30 hours, jumped into Falku river at Bhanwar and committed suicide. That the accused had abetted the suicide of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and his wife, Satiben @ Santokhben wife of Hameerbhai Kanabhai, Ambaliya Ahir filed a complaint on 16.09.2003 before the Bhanwar Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No.95 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC.

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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Khambhaliya and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Khambhaliya as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 133 of 2003.

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 12, 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 thirteen oral evidences and twenty five documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.65, 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 contrar