Mere harassment, without instigation or direct aid, does not establish liability for suicide under Section 306 IPC; acquittal affirmed due to lack of evidence linking accused's actions directly to the victim's decision to commit suicide.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 20.11.2012 passed in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011 on the file of the learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, whereby the sole accused in the case was acquitted of the charges under Sections 306 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Concise statement of facts pertaining to the prosecution case may be stated as follows.

3. Pareshbhai Shantilal Maniyar (herein after referred to as “the deceased”) is the husband of the accused. Their marriage was solemnized more than seven years ago, prior to the death of the deceased. They had no issues out of their lawful wedlock. It is stated that the accused, who is the wife of the deceased, used to harass the deceased quarreling with him frequently and beat him unnecessarily and attack him on his private parts. As they were not in cordial terms with each other, the accused used to subject the deceased to harassment in the above manner daily. While so, on 4.11.2010, it is stated that, the deceased has informed PW-1, who is his father, that he is fed up with the behaviour of his wife, who is the accused, as she has been constantly harassing him by picking up quarrels with him and beating him, and that unable to bear the said harassment that he is consuming poison. So, it is stated that the deceased had taken insecticide tablets at about 8.30 a.m. on that day in the lavatory, and again at 11 a.m. on that day, he has taken the same insecticide tablets in the house. Thereafter, he had vomitings and when he is being taken to the hospital, the accused obstructed his family members from taking him to the hospital and, at that time also, she quarreled with him. After the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was admitted in the hospital. On the requisition given by the hospital authority, PW-10, who is learned Executive Magistrate, visited the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The deceased stated in his dying declaration that the accused, who is his wife, has been constantly harassing him by quarreling with him and beating him frequently and unable to bear the said harassment that he has consumed the poison. Thereafter, he died on the same day i.e. 4.11.2010. After holding the inquest over his dead body, autopsy was held over his dead-body by the doctor, who is examined as PW-7, and no injuries anywhere on his body or on his private parts were found. The doctor opined that he died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to poisoning by the compound named alluminium phosphied. Postmortem certificate was issued to that effect.

4. After his death on 4.11.2010, PW-1, lodged a report with police against accused on 25.11.2010 with delay of 20 days. The police registered the said report as a case for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC. The case was investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC.

5. In the trial Court charge under Section 306 of IPC and alternative charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused. He denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In the trial that took place, prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-13 witnesses and got marked 24 exhibits to prove its case against the accused.

7. After completion of the trial, upon considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty either for the charge under Section 306 or for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted him of the said offences by the impugned judgment of acquittal.

8. Being not satisfied with the said judgment of acquittal, and aggrieved by it, the State has preferred the